SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc.
DELL 117.42-1.7%3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: richard surckla who wrote (85547)12/16/1998 5:01:00 AM
From: nihil   of 176387
 
re: what is perjury

According to the most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision I can find, the definition is as follows:

"In determining what constitutes perjury, we rely upon the definition that has gained general acceptance and common understanding under the federal criminal perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. 1621. A witness testifying under oath or affirmation violates this statute if she gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory . See 1621(1); United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 376 (1953); United States v. Norris, 300 U.S. 564, 574, 576 (1937). This federal definition of perjury by a witness has remained unchanged in its material respects for over a century. See United States v. Smull, 236 U.S. 405, 408, and n. 1 (1915) (tracing history of 1621's predecessor, Act of Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, 125, 35 Stat. 1111). It parallels typical state law definitions of perjury, see American Law Institute, Model Penal Code 241.1 (1985); 4 C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Law 601 (14th ed. 1981), and has roots in the law dating back to at least the Perjury Statute of 1563, 5 Eliz. I, ch. 9, see Gordon, The Invention of a Common Law [507 U.S. 87, 95] Crime: Perjury and the Elizabethan Courts, 24 Am. J. Legal Hist. 145 (1980). See also 1 Colonial Laws of New York, 1664-1719, ch. 8, pp. 129-130 (reprinting "An Act to prevent wilfull Perjury," enacted Nov. 1, 1683)."

U.S. Supreme Court

UNITED STATES v. DUNNIGAN, 507 U.S. 87 (1993)

A really interesting case in which the Supreme uphald the NLRB in making an award to a perjuror (as being in the NLRB's discretion, is
laws.findlaw.com

U.S. Supreme Court

ABF FREIGHT SYS., INC. v. NLRB, ___ U.S. ___ (1994)

I think we'll hear more about this case in the coming days. The Supreme Court saying that perjury is of secondary importance.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext